Lexington approves ‘Bloom’ rebuild and land swaps, clearing path for $659.7 million high school project

The Lexington Town Meeting voted to approve funding and related land-authority measures on Nov. 3, 2025, advancing a plan to demolish the current Lexington High School and build a new 509,000-square-foot facility under the schematic called “Bloom.” The appropriation motion under Article 8 passed by more than the required two-thirds margin (155 in favor, 15 opposed, 5 abstaining). The companion Article 9 authorizing home-rule legislation and custody transfers for the field swap also passed (155–13–4).

Superintendent Julie Hackett introduced the project in a video presentation, calling it “a transformative investment in Lexington’s future” and summarizing an eight-year planning process that led the school building committee to select Bloom after studying 19 design options. Hackett said the total project cost is $659.7 million and that Lexington’s estimated local share is $533 million after a $121 million grant from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). She added that additional partners and incentives — $4.5 million from Mass Save and $1 million from a Lab Collaborative — help reduce the local burden.

Why it matters: proponents argued the current LHS campus is functionally obsolete and increasingly costly to maintain. School and municipal leaders said Bloom delivers capacity, accessibility, modern labs and community spaces and includes sustainability measures — a large rooftop PV and battery system and an all-electric HVAC approach — that the design team projects will cut lifecycle carbon emissions and operating costs.

Opponents raised environmental, fiscal and process concerns. Select Board member Jay Lucente, who voted no, said he supports a new high school but not the current proposal. “While Lexington needs a new high school, this is not the right project,” Lucente said, arguing that the plan bundles unrelated elements, creates parking shortfalls, and poses engineering risks on difficult soils. Resident speaker Alan Safarian warned that the project would eliminate a wetland (referred to in testimony as W7) and sits within recently updated FEMA flood-mapping, a combination he said could require flood-resistant construction or lead the Conservation Commission to oppose an Article 97 land release.

The project team and town counsel responded during the public record. Erin Pristillio, a civil engineer with SMMA (the project architects/engineers), said the team has studied the watershed, applied to FEMA for revised mapping and is working through permitting with conservation authorities: “We have studied the watershed and have applied to FEMA to revise the flood mapping…we are able to locate the building and the necessary infrastructure away from those [flood] elevations,” she said. Town counsel also told members that the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA/EA) requested additional documentation but that the EA review does not itself prohibit filing legislation; the town submitted appraisal and mitigation plans required under the Article 97 review process.

The votes: after extensive debate and a successful motion to close debate, Town Meeting approved Article 8 (the appropriation motion) and then Article 9 (the home-rule/land-swap and Article 97 authorization steps). Officials emphasized that the appropriation advances the project to the referendum stage: Lexington will still need to secure a favorable result on the required debt-exclusion ballot expected Dec. 8 for the debt issuance portion of the plan.

What happens next: statutory and permitting steps remain. The town will continue the MEPA and conservation permitting work, pursue the EA review and legislative steps for any Article 97 release, and prepare for the town’s debt-exclusion ballot. Advocates said the MSBA grant may be jeopardized if the project is substantially changed or if the town does not proceed; opponents said additional environmental and financial clarifications should be resolved before further expenditures.

The meeting record shows broad community engagement: students testified about cramped hallways and noisy systems; the recreation committee urged legally binding protections for replacement fields; and residents across the town gave both lengthy endorsements and detailed objections before the votes that carried the measures forward.